@article{Loewensteint2016,
author = {Loewensteint, George and Donoghuett, Ted O},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/The University of Chicago Law Review Volume 73 issue 1 2006 [doi 10.2307{\%}2F4495549] George Loewenstein and Ted O'Donoghue -- Symposium- Homo Economicus, Homo Myopicus, and the Law and Economics of Con.pdf:pdf},
number = {1},
title = {{" We Can Do This the Easy Way or the Hard Way ": Negative Emotions , Self-Regulation , and the Law Author ( s ): George Loewenstein and Ted O ' Donoghue Source : The University of Chicago Law Review , Vol . 73 , No . 1 , Symposium : Homo Economicus , Homo}},
volume = {73},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Guala2015,
abstract = {Thaler and Sunstein justify nudge policies from welfaristic premises: nudges are acceptable because they benefit the individuals who are nudged. A tacit assumption behind this strategy is that we can identify the true preferences of decision-makers. We argue that this assumption is often unwarranted, and that as a consequence nudge policies must be justified in a different way. A possible strategy is to abandon welfarism and endorse genuine paternalism. Another one is to argue that the biases of decision that choice architects attempt to eliminate create externalities. For example, in the case of intertemporal discounting, the costs of preference reversals are not always paid by the discounters, because they are transferred onto other individuals. But if this is the case, then nudges are best justified from a political rather than welfaristic standpoint.},
author = {Guala, Francesco and Mittone, Luigi},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0241-8},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0241-8] Guala, Francesco$\backslash$; Mittone, Luigi -- A Political Justification of Nudging.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502418},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {385--395},
title = {{A Political Justification of Nudging}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{West2020,
abstract = {Human behaviour is central to transmission of SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and changing behaviour is crucial to preventing transmission in the absence of pharmaceutical interventions. Isolation and social distancing measures, including edicts to stay at home, have been brought into place across the globe to reduce transmission of the virus, but at a huge cost to individuals and society. In addition to these measures, we urgently need effective interventions to increase adherence to behaviours that individuals in communities can enact to protect themselves and others: use of tissues to catch expelled droplets from coughs or sneezes, use of face masks as appropriate, hand-washing on all occasions when required, disinfecting objects and surfaces, physical distancing, and not touching one's eyes, nose or mouth. There is an urgent need for direct evidence to inform development of such interventions, but it is possible to make a start by applying behavioural science methods and models.},
author = {West, Robert and Michie, Susan and Rubin, G. James and Aml{\^{o}}t, Richard},
doi = {10.1038/s41562-020-0887-9},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/s41562-020-0887-9.pdf:pdf},
issn = {23973374},
journal = {Nature Human Behaviour},
keywords = {covid,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usado},
number = {5},
pages = {451--459},
pmid = {32377018},
publisher = {Springer US},
title = {{Applying principles of behaviour change to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0887-9},
volume = {4},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Marcelo2016,
author = {Marcelo, Corrales and Jurcys, Paulius},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/The Modern Law Review Volume 79 issue 3 2016 [doi 10.1111{\%}2F1468-2230.12200] Corrales, Marcelo$\backslash$; Jur{\"{A}}ys, Paulius -- Cass{\^{A}} Sunstein, Why Nudge- The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism, New Haven{\_}London- .pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0191023515},
journal = {The Modern Law Review},
number = {3},
pages = {533--536},
title = {{Book Review: Why Nudge: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism}},
url = {https://books.google.com/books?id=mygDBQAAQBAJ{\&}pgis=1},
volume = {79},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Leal2020,
author = {Leal, Cristiana Cerqueira and Oliveira, Benilde},
doi = {10.1002/9781119804345.ch1},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/9781119804345.ch1.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Sustainable Management for Managers and Engineers},
keywords = {nudge,organ donation},
mendeley-tags = {nudge,organ donation},
pages = {1--17},
title = {{Choice Architecture: Nudging for Sustainable Behavior}},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Smith2013,
abstract = {Defaults have such powerful and pervasive effects on consumer behavior that they could be considered "hidden persuaders" in some settings. Ignoring defaults is not a sound option for marketers or consumer policy makers. The authors identify three theoretical causes of default effects-implied endorsement, cognitive biases, and effort-to guide thought on the appropriate marketer and policy maker responses to the issues posed for consumer welfare and consumer autonomy, including proposals for benign "nudges" of behavior. Defaults can be a preferred form of decision architecture; that is, other nonconscious influences on choice and an absence of established preferences can mean that active choice is not always the better alternative. The authors propose "smart defaults" as welfare-enhancing and market-oriented alternatives to the current practice of generally ignoring default effects. Their analysis highlights the importance of considering the process as well as the outcomes of consumer decision making and taking responsibility for consumers' mistakes arising from misuse of defaults. The authors conclude by reflecting on the ethical and policy implications of techniques that influence consumer choice without awareness. {\textcopyright} 2013, American Marketing Association.},
author = {Smith, N. Craig and Goldstein, Daniel G. and Johnson, Eric J.},
doi = {10.1509/jppm.10.114},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Journal of Public Policy {\&} Marketing Volume 32 issue 2 2013 [doi 10.1509{\%}2Fjppm.10.114] Smith, N. Craig$\backslash$; Goldstein, Daniel G.$\backslash$; Johnson, Eric J. -- Choice Without Awareness- Ethical and Policy Implicat.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15477207},
journal = {Journal of Public Policy and Marketing},
keywords = {Consumer autonomy,Consumer preferences,Consumer protection,Default effects,Marketing ethics,Nonconscious influences},
number = {2},
pages = {159--172},
title = {{Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults}},
volume = {32},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Al-Hasan2020,
abstract = {Background: Social distancing is an effective preventative policy for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that is enforced by governments worldwide. However, significant variations are observed in following the policy across individuals and countries. Arguably, differences in citizens' adherence actions will be influenced by their perceptions about government's plans and the information available to guide their behaviors-more so in the digital age in the realm of mass influence of social media on citizens. Insights into the underlying factors and dynamics involved with citizens' adherence process will inform the policy makers to follow appropriate communication and messaging approaches to influence citizens' willingness to adhere to the recommendations. Objective: The aim of this study is a comparative evaluation of citizens' adherence process to COVID-19-relevant recommendations by the government. The focus is on how three different countries' (United States, Kuwait, and South Korea) citizens, randomly sampled, respond to governments' pandemic guidance efforts. We draw insights into two categories of perceived government roles in managing the pandemic: (1) citizens' perceptions of government's role in responding to the pandemic and (2) citizens' perceptions of government's business reopening efforts. Undoubtedly, the internet and social media have burgeoned, with differing effects on shaping individuals' views and assessments of the COVID-19 situation; we argue and test for the effects of information sources, social media use, and knowledge on the adherence actions. Methods: We randomly sampled web-based survey data collected by a global firm in May 2020 from citizens of the United States, Kuwait, and South Korea. A nonlinear ordered probit regression, controlling for several counterfactuals, was used for analysis. The focal estimated effects of the study were compared across countries using the weighted distance between the parameter estimates. Results: The total sample size was 482 respondents, of which 207 (43{\%}) lived in the United States, 181 (38{\%}) lived in Kuwait, and 94 (20{\%}) lived in South Korea. The ordered probit estimation results suggest that overall, perception of government response efforts positively influenced self-adherence (P{\textless}.001) and others' adherence (P{\textless}.001) to social distancing and sheltering. Perception of government business reopening efforts positively influenced others' adherence (P{\textless}.001). A higher intensity of general health information source for COVID-19 had a positive effect on self-adherence (P=.003). A higher intensity of social media source use for COVID-19 positively influenced others' adherence (P=.002). A higher intensity of knowledge on COVID-19 positively influenced self-adherence (P=.008) and negatively influenced others' adherence (P{\textless}.001). There were country-level variations-broadly, the United States and Kuwait had better effects than South Korea. Conclusions: As the COVID-19 global pandemic continues to grow and governmental restrictions are ongoing, it is critical to understand people's frustration to reduce panic and promote social distancing to facilitate the control of the pandemic. This study finds that the government plays a central role in terms of adherence to restrictions. Governments need to enhance their efforts on publicizing information on the pandemic, as well as employ strategies for improved communication management to citizens through social media as well as mainstream information sources.},
author = {Al-Hasan, Abrar and Yim, Dobin and Khuntia, Jiban},
doi = {10.2196/20634},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/pdf.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14388871},
journal = {Journal of Medical Internet Research},
keywords = {Adherence,COVID-19,Government perception,Information sources,Knowledge,Social distancing,Social media,covid,nudge messages,sugest{\~{a}}o de pol{\'{i}}tica,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,nudge messages,sugest{\~{a}}o de pol{\'{i}}tica,usado},
number = {8},
pages = {1--11},
pmid = {32716896},
title = {{Citizens' Adherence to COVID-19 mitigation recommendations by the government: A 3-country comparative evaluation using web-based cross-sectional survey data}},
volume = {22},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Mendes-Da-Silva2019,
abstract = {Neste editorial, o segundo do volume 23 da Revista de Administra{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o Contempor{\^{a}}nea (RAC), julguei oportuno abordar um assunto que se apresenta sensivelmente relevante para dirimir esfor{\c{c}}os redundantes de pesquisa no campo de neg{\'{o}}cios: as duas maneiras mais comuns de produzir artigos de revis{\~{a}}o de literatura, revis{\~{o}}es narrativas (RN) e revis{\~{o}}es sistem{\'{a}}ticas (RS), conforme testemunham Bolderston (2008); Grant e Booth (2009); e Pautasso (2013). Isto {\'{e}}, a caracteriza{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o, e a distin{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o, de trabalhos cuja contribui{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o essencial seja creditada {\`{a}} revis{\~{a}}o de literatura narrativa (Green, Johnson, {\&} Adams, 2006), em rela{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o {\`{a}}queles dedicados a realizar revis{\~{o}}es sistem{\'{a}}ticas (Fisch {\&} Block, 2018) constitui-se relevante para a produ{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o de trabalhos que permitam o entendimento sistematizado da literatura a respeito de determinado tema.},
author = {Mendes-Da-Silva, Wesley},
doi = {10.1590/1982-7849rac2019190094},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/1320-Texto do artigo-1802-2-10-20190330.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0000000255004},
issn = {1415-6555},
journal = {Revista de Administra{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o Contempor{\^{a}}nea},
number = {2},
pages = {1--11},
title = {{Contribui{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es e Limita{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es de Revis{\~{o}}es Narrativas e Revis{\~{o}}es Sistem{\'{a}}ticas na {\'{A}}rea de Neg{\'{o}}cios}},
volume = {23},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Hausman2010,
author = {Hausman, Daniel M. and Welch, Brynn},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00351.x},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Journal of Political Philosophy Volume 18 issue 1 2010 [doi 10.1111{\%}2Fj.1467-9760.2009.00351.x] Daniel M. Hausman$\backslash$; Brynn Welch -- Debate- To Nudge or Not to Nudge.pdf:pdf},
issn = {09638016},
journal = {Journal of Political Philosophy},
number = {1},
pages = {123--136},
title = {{Debate: To nudge or not to nudge}},
volume = {18},
year = {2010}
}
@book{Ariely2012,
author = {Ariely, Dan},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/ARIELY - A Mais Pura Verdade Sobre a Desonestidade.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9788535261899},
title = {{Desonestidade}},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Riemer2020,
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has created a need for rapid, population-wide digital contact tracing. One solution, Bluetooth-enabled digital proximity tracing using smartphones, promises to preserve individual privacy while helping to contain society-wide viral outbreaks. However, this digital solution works effectively only if adopted by the majority of the population. This poses a collective action problem: everyone would benefit from wide-spread proximity tracing, but the benefits for the individual are indirect and limited. To facilitate such collective action at the societal level, this paper conceptualises the option space of IT governance actions for proximity tracing adoption along two dimensions: decision-making entities (who will govern the roll-out) and accountability enforcement (how strictly will adoption and use be enforced). Examining coherent governance approaches that arise from the framework, we show that there are no globally ideal approaches but only locally contextualised ones that depend on immediate health risk, prior experience with pandemics, societal values and national culture, role of government, trust in government and trust in technology in each society. The paper contributes specific propositions for governing digital contact tracing in the COVID-19 pandemic and general theoretical implications for IT governance for collective action at the societal level.},
author = {Riemer, Kai and Ciriello, Raffaele and Peter, Sandra and Schlagwein, Daniel},
doi = {10.1080/0960085X.2020.1819898},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Riemer2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14769344},
journal = {European Journal of Information Systems},
keywords = {COVID-19,IT governance,collective action,covid,digital contact tracing,pandemics,proximity tracing,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usado},
number = {00},
pages = {1--15},
publisher = {Taylor {\&} Francis},
title = {{Digital contact-tracing adoption in the COVID-19 pandemic: IT governance for collective action at the societal level}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1819898},
volume = {00},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Zapelini2013,
author = {Zapelini, Marcello Beckert},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/T21 - Zappellini.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Encontro da ANPAD - EnANPAD, 37},
pages = {1--17},
title = {{{\'{E}}tica e Administra{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o P{\'{u}}blica: Uma Abordagem a Partir de Tr{\^{e}}s Modelos Normativos}},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Pennycook2020,
abstract = {Across two studies with more than 1,700 U.S. adults recruited online, we present evidence that people share false claims about COVID-19 partly because they simply fail to think sufficiently about whether or not the content is accurate when deciding what to share. In Study 1, participants were far worse at discerning between true and false content when deciding what they would share on social media relative to when they were asked directly about accuracy. Furthermore, greater cognitive reflection and science knowledge were associated with stronger discernment. In Study 2, we found that a simple accuracy reminder at the beginning of the study (i.e., judging the accuracy of a non-COVID-19-related headline) nearly tripled the level of truth discernment in participants' subsequent sharing intentions. Our results, which mirror those found previously for political fake news, suggest that nudging people to think about accuracy is a simple way to improve choices about what to share on social media.},
author = {Pennycook, Gordon and McPhetres, Jonathon and Zhang, Yunhao and Lu, Jackson G. and Rand, David G.},
doi = {10.1177/0956797620939054},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Pennycook2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14679280},
journal = {Psychological Science},
keywords = {covid,decision making,open data,open materials,policy making,preregistered,reflectiveness,social cognition,social media,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usado},
number = {7},
pages = {770--780},
pmid = {32603243},
title = {{Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention}},
volume = {31},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Barton2015,
author = {Barton, Adrien and Gr{\"{u}}ne-Yanoff, Till},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0268-x},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Barton-Gr{\~{A}}¼ne-Yanoff2015{\_}Article{\_}FromLibertarianPaternalismToNu.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
keywords = {covid,usado,utilitarism},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usado,utilitarism},
number = {3},
pages = {341--359},
title = {{From Libertarian Paternalism to Nudging—and Beyond}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Marone2020,
abstract = {Geoscientists developed geoethics, an intra-disciplinary field of applied philosophical studies, during the last decade. Reaching beyond the sphere of professional geosciences, it led to professional, cultural, and philosophical approaches to handle the social-ecological structures of our planet ‘wherever human activities interact with the Earth system'. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 and considering geoscientists' experiences dealing with disasters (related to hazards like tsunamis, floods, climate changes), this essay (1) explores the geoethical approach, (2) re-casts geoethics within western philosophical systems, such as the Kantian imperatives, Kohlberg scale of moral adequacy, Jonas' imperative of responsibility, and (3) advances a ‘geoethical thesis'. The latter takes the form of a hypothesis of a much broader scope of geoethics than initially envisioned. That hypothesis appears by suspecting a relationship between the relative successes in the COVID-19 battle with the positioning of agents (individual, collective, institutional) into ethical frameworks. The turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic calls for the transfer of experiences between different disciplinary domains to further sustainable governance, hence generalizing the geoethical approach. It is emphasized that only when behaving as responsible and knowledgeable citizens then people of any trade (including [geo-]scientists) can transgress the boundaries of ordinary governance practices with legitimacy.},
author = {Marone, Eduardo and Bohle, Martin},
doi = {10.3390/su12187271},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/sustainability-12-07271.pdf:pdf},
issn = {20711050},
journal = {Sustainability (Switzerland)},
keywords = {COVID-19 pandemic,Ethical imperatives,Geoethics,Responsible science,Social-ecological systems,covid,kant},
mendeley-tags = {covid,kant},
number = {18},
pages = {1--15},
title = {{Geoethics for nudging human practices in times of pandemics}},
volume = {12},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Fateh-Moghadam2014,
abstract = {Legal restrictions of the right to self-determination increasingly pretend to be compatible with the liberal concept of autonomy: they act upon a 'soft' or autonomy-orientated paternalistic rationale. Conventional liberal critique of paternalism turns out to be insensitive to the intricate normative problems following from 'soft' or 'libertarian' paternalism. In fact, these autonomy-oriented forms of paternalism could actually be even more problematic and may infringe liberty rights even more intensely than hard paternalistic regulation. This paper contributes to the systematic differentiation of soft and hard paternalism by discussing the (legal) concept of autonomy and elaborates the moral and legal limits of autonomy-orientated paternalism. {\textcopyright} 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.},
author = {Fateh-Moghadam, Bijan and Gutmann, Thomas},
doi = {10.1007/s10677-013-9450-3},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Volume 17 issue 3 2014 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs10677-013-9450-3] Fateh-Moghadam, Bijan$\backslash$; Gutmann, Thomas -- Governing [through] Autonomy. The Moral and Legal Limits of “Soft P.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15728447},
journal = {Ethical Theory and Moral Practice},
keywords = {Autonomy,Autonomy-oriented paternalism,Libertarian paternalism,Soft paternalism,Weak paternalism,ethics,kant,usado},
mendeley-tags = {ethics,kant,usado},
number = {3},
pages = {383--397},
title = {{Governing [through] Autonomy. The Moral and Legal Limits of "Soft Paternalism"}},
volume = {17},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Favero2020,
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic is a major challenge facing societies around the world. Citizen engagement in “social distancing” is a key containment measure for curtailing the spread of the virus. But what kind of information should governments use for encouraging social distancing compliance? Using data from a pre-registered survey experiment among US residents (n = 1,502), we examine how five distinct COVID-19 information cues—which each appeal to prosocial motivation and empathy in varying degree—affect people's willingness to social distance. We find no significant differences across experimental conditions in terms of (a) the duration that respondents are willing to maintain social distancing, (b) intended social distancing behavior, or (c) COVID-19-related attitudes and beliefs. Our findings should not necessarily discourage decision-makers from priming prosocial motivation and empathy as means for promoting social distancing, but they do suggest a current need for more engaging medium than simple textual messages for such appeals.},
author = {Favero, Nathan and Pedersen, Mogens Jin},
doi = {10.30636/jbpa.32.167},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/167-Other-1116-2-10-20201121.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Journal of Behavioral Public Administration},
keywords = {coronavirus,covid,covid-19,open data,open materials,preregistered,social distancing,supplements,survey experiment,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usado},
number = {2},
pages = {1--18},
title = {{How to encourage “Togetherness by Keeping Apart” amid COVID-19? The ineffectiveness of prosocial and empathy appeals}},
volume = {3},
year = {2020}
}
@book{Gigerenzer1991,
abstract = {Most so-called “errors” in probabilistic reasoning are in fact not violations of probability theory. Examples of such “errors” include overconfidence bias, conjunction fallacy, and base-rate neglect. Researchers have relied on a very narrovv normative view, and have ignored conceptual distinctions—e.g. single case versus relative frequency—fundamental to probability theory. By recognizing and using these distinctions, however, we can make apparently stable “errors” disappear, reappear, or even invert. I suggest what a reformed understanding of judgments under uncertainty might look like. {\textcopyright} 1991, John Wiley {\&} Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.},
author = {Gigerenzer, Gerd},
booktitle = {European Review of Social Psychology},
doi = {10.1080/14792779143000033},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/European Review of Social Psychology Volume 2 issue 1 1991 [doi 10.1080{\%}2F14792779143000033] Gigerenzer, Gerd -- How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear- Beyond “Heuristics and Biases”.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1479277914300},
issn = {1479277X},
number = {1},
pages = {83--115},
title = {{How to make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases”}},
volume = {2},
year = {1991}
}
@article{Debnath2020,
abstract = {India locked down 1.3 billion people on March 25, 2020, in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. The economic cost of it was estimated at USD 98 billion, while the social costs are still unknown. This study investigated how government formed reactive policies to fight coronavirus across its policy sectors. Primary data was collected from the Press Information Bureau (PIB) in the form press releases of government plans, policies, programme initiatives and achievements. A text corpus of 260,852 words was created from 396 documents from the PIB. An unsupervised machine-based topic modelling using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) algorithm was performed on the text corpus. It was done to extract high probability topics in the policy sectors. The interpretation of the extracted topics was made through a nudge theoretic lens to derive the critical policy heuristics of the government. Results showed that most interventions were targeted to generate endogenous nudge by using external triggers. Notably, the nudges from the Prime Minister of India was critical in creating herd effect on lockdown and social distancing norms across the nation. A similar effect was also observed around the public health (e.g., masks in public spaces; Yoga and Ayurveda for immunity), transport (e.g., old trains converted to isolation wards), micro, small and medium enterprises (e.g., rapid production of PPE and masks), science and technology sector (e.g., diagnostic kits, robots and nano-technology), home affairs (e.g., surveillance and lockdown), urban (e.g. drones, GIS-tools) and education (e.g., online learning). A conclusion was drawn on leveraging these heuristics are crucial for lockdown easement planning.},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
arxivId = {2005.06619},
author = {Debnath, Ramit and Bardhan, Ronita},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0238972},
eprint = {2005.06619},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/pone.0238972.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1111111111},
issn = {19326203},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
keywords = {covid,good nudges},
mendeley-tags = {covid,good nudges},
number = {9 September},
pages = {1--25},
pmid = {32915899},
title = {{India nudges to contain COVID-19 pandemic: A reactive public policy analysis using machine-learning based topic modelling}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238972},
volume = {15},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Ding2020,
author = {Ding, Ding and {Del Pozo Cruz}, Borja and Green, Mark A. and Bauman, Adrian E.},
doi = {10.1136/bjsports-2020-102575},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Ding2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14730480},
journal = {British Journal of Sports Medicine},
keywords = {behaviour,covid,nudge exercise,n{\~{a}}o usado,physical activity,public health,surveillance},
mendeley-tags = {covid,nudge exercise,n{\~{a}}o usado},
number = {20},
pages = {2019--2020},
pmid = {32605932},
title = {{Is the COVID-19 lockdown nudging people to be more active: A big data analysis}},
volume = {54},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Geldsetzer2019,
author = {Geldsetzer, Pascal},
doi = {10.7326/M19-0679},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/aim-olf-M200912.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15393704},
journal = {Annals of Internal Medicine},
keywords = {covid,usar nas considera{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es finais},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usar nas considera{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es finais},
number = {6},
pages = {441--443},
pmid = {31284299},
title = {{Knowledge and Perceptions of COVID-19 Among the General Public in the United States and the United Kingdom: A Cross-sectional Online Survey}},
volume = {171},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Veetil2011,
abstract = {Sunstein and Thaler's proposal for 'libertarian paternalism' in their paper titled "Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron" (LPNO from here on) is based on the contention that paternalism is sometimes (1) inevitable and (2) non coercive, and (3) that individuals do not always make 'rational' decisions. The first two contentions are untrue, and the question of whether individuals make 'rational' decisions as judged by the axiomatic definition of neo-classical economic theory is vestigial to the ideas and policy prescriptions of classical liberal and libertarian political economy. The paper, fraught with definitional confusions and methodological difficulties, is a superior example of how correct empirical observations and laudable advancements in identifying cognitive characteristics that may be relevant to economic analysis can lead to unsound theories due to methodological deficiencies. Policy prescriptions in the long run must take an institutional form; the greatest deception of the paper lies in its omission of any discussion on such an institution, which, I believe by logical necessity would be a Platonist autocratic bureaucracy. A consistent application of libertarian paternalism is the 'road to serfdom'. {\textcopyright} 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.},
author = {Veetil, Vipin P.},
doi = {10.1007/s10657-010-9193-8},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/European Journal of Law and Economics Volume 31 issue 3 2011 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs10657-010-9193-8] Vipin P. Veetil -- Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron- an essay in defence of liberty.pdf:pdf},
issn = {09291261},
journal = {European Journal of Law and Economics},
keywords = {K00,Libertarian paternalism},
number = {3},
pages = {321--334},
title = {{Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron: An essay in defence of liberty}},
volume = {31},
year = {2011}
}
@article{Snyder2019,
abstract = {Knowledge production within the field of business research is accelerating at a tremendous speed while at the same time remaining fragmented and interdisciplinary. This makes it hard to keep up with state-of-the-art and to be at the forefront of research, as well as to assess the collective evidence in a particular area of business research. This is why the literature review as a research method is more relevant than ever. Traditional literature reviews often lack thoroughness and rigor and are conducted ad hoc, rather than following a specific methodology. Therefore, questions can be raised about the quality and trustworthiness of these types of reviews. This paper discusses literature review as a methodology for conducting research and offers an overview of different types of reviews, as well as some guidelines to how to both conduct and evaluate a literature review paper. It also discusses common pitfalls and how to get literature reviews published.},
author = {Snyder, Hannah},
doi = {10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Snyder Journal of Business Research - Literature review as a research methodology.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01482963},
journal = {Journal of Business Research},
keywords = {Integrative review,Literature review,Research methodology,Synthesis,Systematic review},
number = {August},
pages = {333--339},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039},
volume = {104},
year = {2019}
}
@article{Kringos2020,
abstract = {Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a complex global public health crisis presenting clinical, organisational and system-wide challenges. Different research perspectives on health are needed in order to manage and monitor this crisis. Performance intelligence is an approach that emphasises the need for different research perspectives in supporting health systems' decision-makers to determine policies based on well-informed choices. In this paper, we present the viewpoint of the Innovative Training Network for Healthcare Performance Intelligence Professionals (HealthPros) on how performance intelligence can be used during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion: A lack of standardised information, paired with limited discussion and alignment between countries contribute to uncertainty in decision-making in all countries. Consequently, a plethora of different non-data-driven and uncoordinated approaches to address the outbreak are noted worldwide. Comparative health system research is needed to help countries shape their response models in social care, public health, primary care, hospital care and long-term care through the different phases of the pandemic. There is a need in each phase to compare context-specific bundles of measures where the impact on health outcomes can be modelled using targeted data and advanced statistical methods. Performance intelligence can be pursued to compare data, construct indicators and identify optimal strategies. Embracing a system perspective will allow countries to take coordinated strategic decisions while mitigating the risk of system collapse.A framework for the development and implementation of performance intelligence has been outlined by the HealthPros Network and is of pertinence. Health systems need better and more timely data to govern through a pandemic-induced transition period where tensions between care needs, demand and capacity are exceptionally high worldwide. Health systems are challenged to ensure essential levels of healthcare towards all patients, including those who need routine assistance. Conclusion: Performance intelligence plays an essential role as part of a broader public health strategy in guiding the decisions of health system actors on the implementation of contextualised measures to tackle COVID-19 or any future epidemic as well as their effect on the health system at large. This should be based on commonly agreed-upon standardised data and fit-for-purpose indicators, making optimal use of existing health information infrastructures. The HealthPros Network can make a meaningful contribution.},
author = {Kringos, D. and Carinci, F. and Barbazza, E. and Bos, V. and Gilmore, K. and Groene, O. and Gul{\'{a}}csi, L. and Ivankovic, D. and Jansen, T. and Johnsen, S. P. and {De Lusignan}, S. and Mainz, J. and Nuti, S. and Klazinga, N. and Baji, P. and {Brito Fernandes}, O. and Kara, P. and Larrain, N. and Meza, B. and Murante, A. and Pentek, M. and Poldrugovac, M. and Wang, S. and Willmington, C. and Yang, Y.},
doi = {10.1186/s12961-020-00593-x},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/s12961-020-00593-x.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14784505},
journal = {Health Research Policy and Systems},
keywords = {COVID-19,covid,evidence,health information,health services,health systems,n{\~{a}}o usado,performance measurement,policy},
mendeley-tags = {covid,n{\~{a}}o usado},
number = {1},
pages = {1--8},
pmid = {32664985},
publisher = {Health Research Policy and Systems},
title = {{Managing COVID-19 within and across health systems: Why we need performance intelligence to coordinate a global response}},
volume = {18},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Islam2020,
abstract = {Social media plays a significant role during pandemics such as COVID-19, as it enables people to share news as well as personal experiences and viewpoints with one another in real-time, globally. Building off the affordance lens and cognitive load theory, we investigate how motivational factors and personal attributes influence social media fatigue and the sharing of unverified information during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, we develop a model which we analyse using the structural equation modelling and neural network techniques with data collected from young adults in Bangladesh (N = 433). The results show that people, who are driven by self-promotion and entertainment, and those suffering from deficient self-regulation, are more likely to share unverified information. Exploration and religiosity correlated negatively with the sharing of unverified information. However, exploration also increased social media fatigue. Our findings indicate that the different use purposes of social media introduce problematic consequences, in particular, increased misinformation sharing.},
author = {Islam, A. K.M.Najmul and Laato, Samuli and Talukder, Shamim and Sutinen, Erkki},
doi = {10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120201},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Islam2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {00401625},
journal = {Technological Forecasting and Social Change},
keywords = {COVID-19,Fake news,Fatigue,Misinformation,Pandemic,Social media,covid,nudge messages},
mendeley-tags = {covid,nudge messages},
number = {July},
pages = {120201},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Misinformation sharing and social media fatigue during COVID-19: An affordance and cognitive load perspective}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120201},
volume = {159},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Nivette2021,
abstract = {Rationale: Adolescents and young adults were identified internationally as a group with potentially low compliance rates with public health measures aimed at curbing the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although non-compliance research during pandemics has typically focused on concurrent correlates, less is known about how prior social and psychological risk factors are associated with non-compliance during pandemics. Objective: This paper leverages a prospective-longitudinal cohort study with data before and during the pandemic to describe patterns of non-compliance with COVID- 19 related public health measures in young adults and to identify which characteristics increase the risk of non-compliance. Methods: Data came from an ongoing cohort study in Zurich, Switzerland (n=737). Non-compliance with public health measures and concurrent correlates were measured at age 22. Antecedent sociodemographic, social, and psychological factors were measured at ages 15-20. Young adults generally complied with COVID-19 public health measures, although non-compliance with some measures (e.g., cleaning/disinfecting mobile phones, standing 1.5-2 meters apart) was relatively higher. Results: Non-compliance, especially with hygiene-related measures, was more prevalent in males, and in individuals with higher education, higher SES, and a nonmigrant background. Non-compliance was higher in young adults who had previously scored high on indicators of “antisocial potential,” including low acceptance of moral rules, pre-pandemic legal cynicism, low shame/guilt, low self-control, engagement in delinquent behaviors, and association with delinquent peers. Young adults with low trust, including in the government's measures for fighting the virus, also complied less. Conclusions: In order to increase voluntary compliance with COVID-19 measures, public health campaigns should implement strategies that foster moral obligation and trust in authorities, or leverage trustworthy individuals in the community to disseminate information. For young adults with low self-control, self-monitoring, environmental restructuring, or nudging may increase compliance. Long-term investments into integrating youth with antisocial potential into society may decrease rule-breaking behaviors, including during pandemics when compliance saves lives.},
author = {Nivette, Amy and Ribeaud, Denis and Murray, Aja and Steinhoff, Annekatrin and Bechtiger, Laura and Hepp, Urs and Shanahan, Lilly and Eisner, Manuel},
doi = {10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113370},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Nivette2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {18735347},
journal = {Social Science and Medicine},
keywords = {covid,nudge for youngers,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,nudge for youngers,usado},
number = {August 2020},
pages = {113370},
publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},
title = {{Non-compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures among young adults in Switzerland: Insights from a longitudinal cohort study}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113370},
volume = {268},
year = {2021}
}
@article{Hansen2013,
abstract = {In Nudge (2008) Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein suggested that public policy-makers arrange decision-making contexts in ways to promote behaviour change in the interest of individual citizens as well as that of society. However, in the public sphere and Academia alike widespread discussions have appeared concerning the public acceptability of nudgebased behavioural policy. Thaler and Sunstein's own position is that the anti-nudge position is a literal non-starter, because citizens are always influenced by the decision making context anyway, and nudging is liberty preserving and acceptable if guided by Libertarian Paternalism and Rawls' publicity principle. A persistent and central tenet in the criticism disputing the acceptability of the approach is that nudging works by manipulating citizens' choices. In this paper, we argue that both lines of argumentation are seriously flawed. We show how the anti-nudge position is not a literal non-starter due to the responsibilities that accrue on policy-makers by the intentional intervention in citizens' life, how nudging is not essentially liberty preserving and why the approach is not necessarily acceptable even if satisfying Rawls' publicity principle. We then use the psychological dual process theory underlying the approach as well as an epistemic transparency criterion identified by Thaler and Sunstein themselves to show that nudging is not necessarily about "manipulation", nor necessarily about influencing "choice". The result is a framework identifying four types of nudges that may be used to provide a central component for more nuanced normative considerations as well as a basis for policy recommendations.},
author = {Hansen, Pelle Guldborg and Jespersen, Andreas Maal{\o}e},
doi = {10.1017/s1867299x00002762},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/nudge-and-the-manipulation-of-choice-a-framework-for-the-responsible-use-of-the-nudge-approach-to-behaviour-change-in-public-policy.pdf:pdf},
issn = {21908249},
journal = {European Journal of Risk Regulation},
number = {1},
pages = {3--28},
title = {{Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy}},
volume = {4},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Hume2020,
abstract = {Successful responses to the COVID-19 pandemic require asymptomatic individuals to comply with a range of government guidelines. Nudges to influence behaviour may be effective at increasing compliance with guidance, and behavioural scientists have been advising governments throughout the crisis, including in the UK. Can such strategies successfully transfer from more conventional policy domains to the crisis environment of COVID-19? In a set of linked experiments, we show that social norms, portrayal of the victim, and carrying out a writing task to a relative have an impact on intentions to comply, but after one and two weeks nudged citizens did not change their behaviour. We question whether behavioural outcomes persist when nudged in the context of COVID-19.},
author = {Hume, Susannah and John, Peter and Sanders, Michael and Stockdale, Emma},
doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3644165},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/SSRN-id3644165.pdf:pdf},
journal = {SSRN Electronic Journal},
keywords = {covid,nudge messages,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,nudge messages,usado},
title = {{Nudge in the time of coronavirus: Compliance to behavioural messages during crisis}},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Grune-Yanoff2016,
abstract = {If citizens' behavior threatens to harm others or seems not to be in their own interest (e.g., risking severe head injuries by riding a motorcycle without a helmet), it is not uncommon for governments to attempt to change that behavior. Governmental policy makers can apply established tools from the governmental toolbox to this end (e.g., laws, regulations, incentives, and disincentives). Alternatively, they can employ new tools that capitalize on the wealth of knowledge about human behavior and behavior change that has been accumulated in the behavioral sciences (e.g., psychology and economics). Two contrasting approaches to behavior change are nudge policies and boost policies. These policies rest on fundamentally different research programs on bounded rationality, namely, the heuristics and biases program and the simple heuristics program, respectively. This article examines the policy–theory coherence of each approach. To this end, it identifies the necessary assumptions underlying each policy and analyzes to what extent these assumptions are implied by the theoretical commitments of the respective research program. Two key results of this analysis are that the two policy approaches rest on diverging assumptions and that both suffer from disconnects with the respective theoretical program, but to different degrees: Nudging appears to be more adversely affected than boosting does. The article concludes with a discussion of the limits of the chosen evaluative dimension, policy–theory coherence, and reviews some other benchmarks on which policy programs can be assessed.},
author = {Gr{\"{u}}ne-Yanoff, Till and Hertwig, Ralph},
doi = {10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Minds and Machines Volume 26 issue 1-2 2016 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs11023-015-9367-9] Gr{\"{u}}ne-Yanoff, Till$\backslash$; Hertwig, Ralph -- Nudge Versus Boost- How Coherent are Policy and Theory{\_}.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15728641},
journal = {Minds and Machines},
keywords = {Bounded rationality,Defaults,Ecological rationality,Heuristics-and-biases program,Nudging,Simple heuristics program},
number = {1-2},
pages = {149--183},
title = {{Nudge Versus Boost: How Coherent are Policy and Theory?}},
volume = {26},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Schnellenbach2012,
abstract = {This paper discusses soft (or libertarian) paternalism, as proposed among others by Thaler and Sunstein (2008). It is argued that soft paternalism should not be understood as an efficiency-enhancing, but as a redistributive concept. The relationship between soft paternalism and social norms is discussed in detail. In particular, it is argued that soft paternalism increases the stability of given social norms, which in turn need not be efficient, nor in the material self-interest of a majority of individuals. Soft paternalism is argued to be an essentially conservative concept of policy-making in the sense that it tends to increase the longevity of status quo social norms. {\textcopyright} 2011 Elsevier B.V.},
author = {Schnellenbach, Jan},
doi = {10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2011.12.001},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/European Journal of Political Economy Volume 28 issue 2 2012 [doi 10.1016{\%}2Fj.ejpoleco.2011.12.001] Jan Schnellenbach -- Nudges and norms- On the political economy of soft paternalism.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01762680},
journal = {European Journal of Political Economy},
keywords = {Behavioral political economics,Expressive behavior,Informal institutions,Libertarian paternalism,Social norms,Soft paternalism,Sour grapes},
number = {2},
pages = {266--277},
publisher = {Elsevier B.V.},
title = {{Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2011.12.001},
volume = {28},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Verweij2012,
author = {Verweij, Marcel and van den Hoven, Mari{\"{e}}tte},
doi = {10.1080/15265161.2011.634489},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/American Journal of Bioethics Volume 12 issue 2 2012 [doi 10.1080{\%}2F15265161.2011.634489] Verweij, Marcel$\backslash$; Hoven, Mari{\"{e}}tte van den -- Nudges in Public Health- Paternalism Is Paramount.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15265161},
journal = {American Journal of Bioethics},
number = {2},
pages = {16--17},
pmid = {22304510},
title = {{Nudges in public health: Paternalism is paramount}},
volume = {12},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Sunstein2015,
abstract = {This essay has three general themes. The first involves the claim that nudging threatens human agency. My basic response is that human agency is fully retained (because nudges do not compromise freedom of choice) and that agency is always exercised in the context of some kind of choice architecture. The second theme involves the importance of having a sufficiently capacious sense of the category of nudges, and a full appreciation of the differences among them. Some nudges either enlist or combat behavioral biases but others do not, and even among those that do enlist or combat such biases, there are significant differences. The third general theme is the need to bring various concerns (including ethical ones) in close contact with particular examples. A legitimate point about default rules may not apply to warnings or reminders. An ethical objection to the use of social norms may not apply to information disclosure. Here as elsewhere, abstraction can be a trap. We continue to learn about the relevant ethical issues, about likely public reactions to nudging, and about differences across cultures and nations. Future progress will depend on a high level of concreteness, perhaps especially in dealing with the vexing problem of time-inconsistency.},
author = {Sunstein, Cass R.},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0266-z},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0266-z] Sunstein, Cass R. -- Nudges, Agency, and Abstraction- A Reply to Critics.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
keywords = {usado},
mendeley-tags = {usado},
number = {3},
pages = {511--529},
title = {{Nudges, Agency, and Abstraction: A Reply to Critics}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Lehner2016,
abstract = {Success of strategies for solving problems of climate change, resource efficiency and environmental impacts increasingly depend on whether changes in public behaviour can and will supplement the technical solutions available to date. A renewed perspective on existing policy tools and potential strategies for behaviour change are entering public debate that have implications for behaviour of individuals, but that also raise critical questions about the role of the government in the society and transition to sustainability. The guiding question is whether it is possible to help individuals make better decisions for themselves and society at large by overcoming limitations of human cognitive capacity and behavioural biases? In order to answer these questions, this article 1) analyses existing academic knowledge on nudging and choice architecture; 2) investigates lessons about effectiveness of applied nudging tools and approaches in consumption domains of energy use in the home, food and mobility; 3) discusses opportunities and limitations for devising more successful nudges in the three consumption domains; and 4) outlines critical issues concerning the legitimacy of nudging. The article shows that lately applications of behavioural sciences and behavioural economics, such as nudge, have been helping policy makers in different countries and sectors to more systematically integrate behavioural insights into policy design and implementation. However, the size of the effects of policy interventions and the actual outcomes of interventions in different contexts are very diverse. Results from one experiment cannot be indiscriminately generalised to a different context or to a wider population. The problem is the complexity of human behaviour and the diversity of factors that influence it. Despite that, nudging is a useful strategy for inducing changes in context-specific behaviour. Nudge tools are seen as a complement to the traditional policy instruments rather than as a substitute for laws and regulations and economic tools. The article is based on the project funded by the Swedish EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that resulted in a report “Nudging. Advancing Swedish policy making with academic insights and practical experiences of changing behaviour” (Mont et al., 2014), which served as an input to the Swedish EPA' recommendations to the Swedish Government on policy measures for sustainable consumption (Naturv{\aa}rdsverket, 2014).},
author = {Lehner, Matthias and Mont, Oksana and Heiskanen, Eva},
doi = {10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.086},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/lehner2015.pdf:pdf},
issn = {09596526},
journal = {Journal of Cleaner Production},
keywords = {Behaviour change,Energy,Food,Nudge,Nudging,Transport},
pages = {166--177},
publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},
title = {{Nudging – A promising tool for sustainable consumption behaviour?}},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.086},
volume = {134},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Cohen2013,
abstract = {Libertarian paternalism's notion of "nudging" refers to steering individual decision making so as to make choosers better off without breaching their free choice. If successful, this may offer an ideal synthesis between the duty to respect patient autonomy and that of beneficence, which at times favors paternalistic influence. A growing body of literature attempts to assess the merits of nudging in health care. However, this literature deals almost exclusively with health policy, while the question of the potential benefit of nudging for the practice of informed consent has escaped systematic analysis. This article focuses on this question. While it concedes that nudging could amount to improper exploitation of cognitive weaknesses, it defends the practice of nudging in a wide range of other conditions. The conclusion is that, when ethically legitimate, nudging offers an important new paradigm for informed consent, with a special potential to overcome the classical dilemma between paternalistic beneficence and respect for autonomy. {\textcopyright} 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.},
author = {Cohen, Shlomo},
doi = {10.1080/15265161.2013.781704},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/American Journal of Bioethics Volume 13 issue 6 2013 [doi 10.1080{\%}2F15265161.2013.781704] Cohen, Shlomo -- Nudging and Informed Consent.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15265161},
journal = {American Journal of Bioethics},
keywords = {decision making,informed consent,moral theory,philosophy,pro nudge,professional ethics,professional-patient relationship,usado},
mendeley-tags = {pro nudge,usado},
number = {6},
pages = {3--11},
pmid = {23641835},
title = {{Nudging and Informed Consent}},
volume = {13},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Wilkinson2013,
abstract = {Behavioural economics and social psychology have shown that humans have all sorts of psychological quirks. Policy makers have become enthusiastic about taking advantage of these quirks through what Thaler and Sunstein call 'nudges'. This article asks: when would nudging be manipulative? The article has six parts: (1) publicity and transparency, which claims that Thaler and Sunstein's own attempt to deal with evil nudges is inadequate; (2) manipulation and autonomy, where the nature and wrongness of manipulation is connected to a conception of autonomy; (3) the perversion of the decision-making process - a piecemeal approach, which sorts nudges into easy and hard cases and assesses attempts to pick out certain methods, such as temptation, as manipulative; (4) the perversion of the decision-making process - general accounts, which shows why we do not have a clear, complete and correct account of what such perversion is; (5) intentions and nudging's escape clause, where it is shown that governments that nudge as Thaler and Sunstein would wish do not manipulate because they do not have the intention to manipulate; and (6) consensual manipulation, where it is claimed that manipulation can, with the right consent, be consistent with autonomy. {\textcopyright} 2012 The Author. Political Studies {\textcopyright} 2012 Political Studies Association.},
author = {Wilkinson, T. M.},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00974.x},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Political Studies Volume aop issue aop 2012 [doi 10.1111{\%}2Fj.1467-9248.2012.00974.x] T. M. Wilkinson -- Nudging and Manipulation.pdf:pdf},
issn = {00323217},
journal = {Political Studies},
keywords = {Autonomy,Behavioural economics,Manipulation,Nudge,Social psychology,ethics,usado},
mendeley-tags = {ethics,usado},
number = {2},
pages = {341--355},
title = {{Nudging and manipulation}},
volume = {61},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Kapsner2015,
abstract = {Nudges can pose serious threats to citizens' privacy. The essay discusses several examples of nudges that must appear problematic to anyone valuing privacy. The paper also re-draws a well established connection between privacy and autonomy and argues that insofar as nudges incur too great a loss of privacy, they are incompatible with the libertarianism that libertarian paternalism is committed to by virtue of its very name.},
author = {Kapsner, Andreas and Sandfuchs, Barbara},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0261-4},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0261-4] Kapsner, Andreas$\backslash$; Sandfuchs, Barbara -- Nudging as a Threat to Privacy.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {455--468},
title = {{Nudging as a Threat to Privacy}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Weijers2020,
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has made a significant impact on citizens all around the world. In order to prevent the spread of the virus, one of the most important measures is practicing hand hygiene. We see nudging, a technique from behavioural economics, as a possible way to increase hand hygiene without relying on mandatory measures. In this field experiment, we test two nudge types that previously have been applied successfully, a salience nudge and a gain frame nudge, in a new context (i.e., shopping street). Four hundred nineteen shoppers were observed during a counterbalanced experiment in three stores, where a disinfectant dispenser was accompanied by a salience nudge, gain frame nudge, or no nudge. Data on dispenser usage was analysed using mixed models to account for groups entering the store. When compared to the control condition, no significant effect of either nudge on participants using the disinfectant was found. This could be caused by the increased attention for hand hygiene during COVID-19, because the baseline for practicing hand hygiene in our study was much higher than that in previous pre-COVID-19 studies. Alternatively, it is possible that shoppers already disinfected their hands before leaving the house, as advised by the government. Our results suggest that stores, and governments, should look for other measures than the tested nudges to improve hand hygiene in the shopping street during the COVID-19 pandemic, either combining different nudges and/or using less subtle methods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract) Original language abstractLa pand{\'{e}}mie de COVID-19 a eu d'importantes r{\'{e}}percussions sur les populations du monde entier. L'une des mesures les plus importantes pour pr{\'{e}}venir la diss{\'{e}}mination du virus est la bonne hygi{\`{e}}ne des mains. Nous voyons la mise en {\oe}uvre d'incitations douces (nudge), technique emprunt{\'{e}}e {\`{a}} l'{\'{e}}conomie comportementale, comme une fa{\c{c}}on d'accro{\^{i}}tre l'hygi{\`{e}}ne des mains sans imposer de mesures obligatoires. Dans cette exp{\'{e}}rience de terrain, on a {\'{e}}valu{\'{e}} deux types d'incitations douces, aussi appel{\'{e}}es « coups de pouce », qui avaient {\'{e}}t{\'{e}} auparavant mis en application avec succ{\`{e}}s —une incitation par la saillance et une incitation bas{\'{e}}e sur le gain —, mais dans un nouveau contexte (c.-{\`{a}}-d., une rue commer{\c{c}}ante). On a observ{\'{e}} 419 personnes faire des emplettes durant une exp{\'{e}}rience contrebalanc{\'{e}}e dans trois magasins ayant chacun un distributeur de d{\'{e}}sinfectant accompagn{\'{e}} d'une incitation par la saillance, d'une incitation bas{\'{e}}e sur le gain, et un autre sans incitation. Les donn{\'{e}}es sur l'usage des distributeurs ont {\'{e}}t{\'{e}} analys{\'{e}}es au moyen de mod{\`{e}}les mixtes pour tenir compte des groupes entrant dans chacun des commerces. En faisant des comparaisons avec la condition de contr{\^{o}}le, on n'a constat{\'{e}} aucun effet significatif des deux incitations douces sur l'usage du d{\'{e}}sinfectant parmi les participants. Ce r{\'{e}}sultat pourrait {\^{e}}tre attribuable {\`{a}} l'importance accrue accord{\'{e}}e {\`{a}} l'hygi{\`{e}}ne des mains depuis la pand{\'{e}}mie de la COVID-19, car les donn{\'{e}}es de base de notre {\'{e}}tude pour la pratique de mesures d'hygi{\`{e}}ne pour les mains {\'{e}}taient de beaucoup plus {\'{e}}lev{\'{e}}es que dans le cadre d'{\'{e}}tudes r{\'{e}}alis{\'{e}}es avant la pand{\'{e}}mie. De plus, il est possible que les clients s'{\'{e}}taient d{\'{e}}j{\`{a}} d{\'{e}}sinfect{\'{e}} les mains avant de quitter la maison, comme le conseillent les gouvernements. Nos r{\'{e}}sultats sugg{\`{e}}rent que les commerces et les gouvernements devraient trouver des mesures autres que les incitations douces test{\'{e}}es pour am{\'{e}}liorer l'hygi{\`{e}}ne des mains dans les rues commer{\c{c}}antes durant la pand{\'{e}}mie de COVID-19, en combinant plusieurs incitations ou en utilisant des moyens moins subtils. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract) Impact statementPublic Significance Statement: During the COVID-19 pandemic, encouraging hand hygiene is very important. We investigated two nudging techniques to improve the use of a disinfectant dispenser in a shopping street, namely drawing attention to it (i.e., salience nudge) and emphasising the gains of hand hygiene (i.e., gain frame nudge). We found that these nudging interventions did not increase hand hygiene. People who want to increase hand hygiene should therefore focus on other, perhaps less subtle, interventions and/or combine this with nudging interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)},
author = {Weijers, Robert J. and de Koning, Bj{\"{o}}rn B.},
doi = {10.1037/cbs0000245},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Weijers2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {0008-400X},
journal = {Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement},
keywords = {10,1037,as of august,cbs0000245,citizens all around the,covid,covid-19,doi,gain frame,hand hygiene,https,lives,made a significant impact,nudging,on how,org,salience,supp,supplemental materials,the covid-19 pandemic has,usado,usar na cr{\'{i}}tica,world lead their daily},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usado,usar na cr{\'{i}}tica},
title = {{Nudging to increase hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic: A field experiment.}},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Kim2020,
abstract = {Prior research in behavioral economics has examined the effects of nudging and the diverse aspects of choice on individuals' decisions and behaviors. Based on this premise, the current research offers a novel and timely view by examining how communication messages in public service advertisements (PSAs) can alter the perception of threat under uncertain situations such as the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic. This article investigates the role of additional relative statistical information on the perception of threat and stockpiling intention. First, we examine whether there is a reduction in the perceived threat of the coronavirus if information about the potential severity of an alternative threat (car accidents) is activated, when compared to offering only statistics on the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which is known as COVID-19. Furthermore, we established the mediating role of a perceived threat in consumers' decisions and behavior in times of severe crisis. This suggests that organizations and policymakers can influence individuals by increasing or decreasing their perceived level of threat depending on the desired outcomes (e.g., respecting authorities' recommendations or avoiding stockpiling). This research offers a deeper understanding of how consumers can be “nudged” toward desired behavior in the context of public health and safety.},
author = {Kim, Jungkeun and Giroux, Marilyn and Gonzalez-Jimenez, Hector and Jang, Seongsoo and Kim, Seongseop and Park, Jooyoung and Kim, Jae Eun and Lee, Jacob C. and Choi, Yung Kyun},
doi = {10.1080/00913367.2020.1806154},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Nudging to Reduce the Perceived Threat of Coronavirus and Stockpiling Intention.pdf:pdf},
issn = {00913367},
journal = {Journal of Advertising},
keywords = {bad nudges,covid,nudge messages,usado},
mendeley-tags = {bad nudges,covid,nudge messages,usado},
number = {0},
pages = {1--15},
publisher = {Routledge},
title = {{Nudging to Reduce the Perceived Threat of Coronavirus}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1806154},
volume = {0},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Grune-Yanoff2012,
abstract = {Libertarian Paternalism (LP) purports to be a kind of paternalism that is "liberty-preserving" and hence compatible with liberal principles. In this paper, I argue against this compatibility claim. I show that LP violates core liberal principles, first because it limits freedom, and secondly because it fails to justify these limitations in ways acceptable to liberal positions. In particular, Libertarian Paternalists argue that sometimes it is legitimate to limit people's liberties if it improves their welfare. A closer look at the welfare notions used, however, reveals that they respect neither the subjectivity nor the plurality of people's values. Thus its justification of the liberty-welfare trade-off is not compatible with liberal principles. I conclude that to justify LP policies, one must appeal to traditional paternalistic principles-and thus, there is no categorical difference between "libertarian" and other forms of paternalism. {\textcopyright} 2012 Springer-Verlag.},
author = {Gr{\"{u}}ne-Yanoff, Till},
doi = {10.1007/s00355-011-0636-0},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Social Choice and Welfare Volume 38 issue 4 2012 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs00355-011-0636-0] Till Gr{\"{u}}ne-Yanoff -- Old wine in new casks- libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01761714},
journal = {Social Choice and Welfare},
number = {4},
pages = {635--645},
title = {{Old wine in new casks: Libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles}},
volume = {38},
year = {2012}
}
@article{Gigerenzer1996,
abstract = {This reply clarifies what G. Gigerenzers (e.g., 1991. 1994; Gigerenzer {\&} Murray, 1987) critique of the heuristics-and-biases approach to statistical reasoning is and is not about. At issue is the imposi- tion of unnecessarily narrow norms of sound reasoning that are used to diagnose so-called cognitive illusions and the continuing reliance on vague heuristics that explain everything and nothing. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (1996) incorrectly asserted that Gigerenzer simply claimed that fre- quency formats make all cognitive illusions disappear. In contrast, Gigerenzer has proposed and tested models that actually predict when frequency judgments are valid and when they are not. The issue is not whether or not. or how often, cognitive illusions disappear. The focus should be rather the construction of detailed models of cognitive processes that explain when and why they disappear. A postscript responds to Kahneman and Tversky's (1996) postscript. I},
author = {Gigerenzer, Gerd},
doi = {10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.592},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Psychological Review Volume 103 issue 3 1996 [doi 10.1037{\%}2F0033-295x.103.3.592] Gigerenzer, Gerd -- On narrow norms and vague heuristics- A reply to Kahneman and Tversky..pdf:pdf},
issn = {0033-295X},
journal = {Psychological Review},
number = {3},
pages = {592--596},
title = {{On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky.}},
volume = {103},
year = {1996}
}
@article{Blumenthal-Barby2013,
author = {Blumenthal-Barby, J. S.Swindell},
doi = {10.1080/15265161.2013.781717},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/American Journal of Bioethics Volume 13 issue 6 2013 [doi 10.1080{\%}2F15265161.2013.781717] Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. Swindell -- On Nudging and Informed Consent—Four Key Undefended Premises.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15265161},
journal = {American Journal of Bioethics},
number = {6},
pages = {31--33},
pmid = {23641846},
title = {{On Nudging and Informed Consent-Four Key Undefended Premises}},
volume = {13},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Gigerenzer2015,
abstract = {Can the general public learn to deal with risk and uncertainty, or do authorities need to steer people's choices in the right direction? Libertarian paternalists argue that results from psychological research show that our reasoning is systematically flawed and that we are hardly educable because our cognitive biases resemble stable visual illusions. For that reason, they maintain, authorities who know what is best for us need to step in and steer our behavior with the help of “nudges.” Nudges are nothing new, but justifying them on the basis of a latent irrationality is. In this article, I analyze the scientific evidence presented for such a justification. It suffers from narrow logical norms, that is, a misunderstanding of the nature of rational thinking, and from a confirmation bias, that is, selective reporting of research. These two flaws focus the blame on individuals' minds rather than on external causes, such as industries that spend billions to nudge people into unhealthy behavior. I conclude that the claim that we are hardly educable lacks evidence and forecloses the true alternative to nudging: teaching people to become risk savvy.},
author = {Gigerenzer, Gerd},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0248-1},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Gigerenzer2015{\_}Article{\_}OnTheSupposedEvidenceForLibert.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {361--383},
title = {{On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Gigerenzer2015a,
abstract = {Can the general public learn to deal with risk and uncertainty, or do authorities need to steer people's choices in the right direction? Libertarian paternalists argue that results from psychological research show that our reasoning is systematically flawed and that we are hardly educable because our cognitive biases resemble stable visual illusions. For that reason, they maintain, authorities who know what is best for us need to step in and steer our behavior with the help of “nudges.” Nudges are nothing new, but justifying them on the basis of a latent irrationality is. In this article, I analyze the scientific evidence presented for such a justification. It suffers from narrow logical norms, that is, a misunderstanding of the nature of rational thinking, and from a confirmation bias, that is, selective reporting of research. These two flaws focus the blame on individuals' minds rather than on external causes, such as industries that spend billions to nudge people into unhealthy behavior. I conclude that the claim that we are hardly educable lacks evidence and forecloses the true alternative to nudging: teaching people to become risk savvy.},
author = {Gigerenzer, Gerd},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0248-1},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0248-1] Gigerenzer, Gerd -- On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {361--383},
title = {{On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Neumann-Bohme2020,
author = {Neumann-B{\"{o}}hme, Sebastian and Varghese, Nirosha Elsem and Sabat, Iryna and Barros, Pedro Pita and Brouwer, Werner and van Exel, Job and Schrey{\"{o}}gg, Jonas and Stargardt, Tom},
doi = {10.1007/s10198-020-01208-6},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Neumann2020.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {0123456789},
issn = {16187601},
journal = {European Journal of Health Economics},
keywords = {I10,I18,covid,vaccine},
mendeley-tags = {covid,vaccine},
number = {7},
pages = {977--982},
pmid = {32591957},
publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
title = {{Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01208-6},
volume = {21},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Trout2005,
author = {Trout, J. D.},
doi = {10.1007/s10982-004-8197-3},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Law and Philosophy Volume 24 issue 4 2005 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs10982-004-8197-3] J. D. Trout -- Paternalism and Cognitive Bias.pdf:pdf},
issn = {01675249},
journal = {Law and Philosophy},
keywords = {covid,justificativa do paternalismo,kant,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,justificativa do paternalismo,kant,usado},
number = {4},
pages = {393--434},
title = {{Paternalism and cognitive bias}},
volume = {24},
year = {2005}
}
@article{Bosancianu2020,
abstract = {Do political and social features of states help explain the evolving distribution of reported Covid-19 deaths? We identify national-level political and social characteristics that past research suggests may help explain variation in a society's ability to respond to adverse shocks. We highlight four sets of arguments-focusing on (1) state capacity, (2) political institutions, (3) political priorities, and (4) social structures-and report on their evolving association with cumulative Covid-19 deaths. After accounting for a simple set of Lasso-chosen controls, we find that measures of government effectiveness, interpersonal and institutional trust, bureaucratic corruption and ethnic fragmentation are currently associated in theory-consistent directions. We do not, however, find associations between deaths and many other political and social variables that have received attention in public discussions, such as populist governments or women-led governments. Currently, the results suggest that state capacity is more important for explaining Covid-19 mortality than government accountability to citizens, with potential implications for how the disease progresses in high-income versus low-income countries. These patterns may change over time with the evolution of the pandemic, however. A dashboard with daily updates, extensions, and code is provided at https://wzb-ipi.github.io/corona/ * WZB, Berlin Social Science Center. Warm thanks for detailed comments and critiques from participants in the "WZB Talks" seminar series. Special thanks to Miriam Golden for two sets of deep and detailed comments. † UC Riverside},
author = {Bosancianu, Constantin Manuel and Dionne, Kim Yi and Hilbig, Hanno and Humphreys, Macartan and KC, Sampada and Lieber, Nils and Scacco, Alex},
doi = {10.31235/osf.io/ub3zd},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Bosancianu2020.pdf:pdf},
keywords = {BE??,Covid-19,covid,institutions,mortality,political economy,state capacity,trust},
mendeley-tags = {BE??,covid},
pages = {1--53},
title = {{Political and Social Correlates of Covid-19 Mortality}},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Hagman2015,
abstract = {When should nudging be deemed as permissible and when should it be deemed as intrusive to individuals' freedom of choice? Should all types of nudges be judged the same? To date the debate concerning these issues has largely proceeded without much input from the general public. The main objective of this study is to elicit public views on the use of nudges in policy. In particular we investigate attitudes toward two broad categories of nudges that we label pro-self (i.e. focusing on private welfare) and pro-social (i.e. focusing on social welfare) nudges. In addition we explore how individual differences in thinking and feeling influence attitudes toward nudges. General population samples in Sweden and the United States (n = 952) were presented with vignettes describing nudge-policies and rated acceptability and intrusiveness on freedom of choice. To test for individual differences, measures on cultural cognition and analytical thinking were included. Results show that the level of acceptance toward nudge-policies was generally high in both countries, but were slightly higher among Swedes than Americans. Somewhat paradoxically a majority of the respondents also perceived the presented nudge-policies as intrusive to freedom of choice. Nudge-polices classified as pro-social had a significantly lower acceptance rate compared to pro-self nudges (p {\textless}.0001). Individuals with a more individualistic worldview were less likely to perceive nudges as acceptable, while individuals more prone to analytical thinking were less likely to perceive nudges as intrusive to freedom of choice. To conclude, our findings suggest that the notion of “one-nudge- fits-all” is not tenable. Recognizing this is an important aspect both for successfully implementing nudges as well as nuancing nudge theory.},
author = {Hagman, William and Andersson, David and V{\"{a}}stfj{\"{a}}ll, Daniel and Tingh{\"{o}}g, Gustav},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0263-2},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0263-2] Hagman, William$\backslash$; Andersson, David$\backslash$; V{\"{a}}stfj{\"{a}}ll, Daniel$\backslash$; Tingh{\"{o}}g -- Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {439--453},
title = {{Public Views on Policies Involving Nudges}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Saghai2013,
abstract = {In recent years, 'nudge' theory has gained increasing attention for the design of population-wide health interventions. The concept of nudge puts a label on efficacious influences that preserve freedom of choice without engaging the influencees' deliberative capacities. Given disagreements over what it takes genuinely to preserve freedom of choice, the question is whether health influences relying on automatic cognitive processes may preserve freedom of choice in a sufficiently robust sense to be serviceable for the moral evaluation of actions and policies. In this article, I offer an argument to this effect, explicating preservation of freedom of choice in terms of choice-set preservation and noncontrol. I also briefly explore the healthcare contexts in which nudges may have priority over more controlling influences.},
author = {Saghai, Yashar},
doi = {10.1136/medethics-2012-100727},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Journal of Medical Ethics Volume 39 issue 8 2013 [doi 10.1136{\%}2Fmedethics-2012-100727] Saghai, Y. -- Salvaging the concept of nudge.pdf:pdf},
issn = {03066800},
journal = {Journal of Medical Ethics},
keywords = {ethics,usado},
mendeley-tags = {ethics,usado},
number = {8},
pages = {487--493},
pmid = {23427215},
title = {{Salvaging the concept of nudge}},
volume = {39},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Heilmann2014,
abstract = {This paper provides a methodological analysis of Libertarian Paternalism, as put forward in the book Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (Yale University Press, 2008). Libertarian Paternalism aims to use the accumulated findings of behavioural economics in order to assist decision-makers to make better choices. The philosophical debate about this proposal has focused on normative issues with regards to this proposal. This paper analyses Libertarian Paternalism descriptively and points out four methodological conditions for successful Nudges. On that basis, a methodological critique of Libertarian Paternalism is mounted: the success conditions suggest that Nudges might be even harder to implement and to justify than commonly assumed in the philosophical debate. {\textcopyright} 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.},
author = {Heilmann, Conrad},
doi = {10.1007/s13194-013-0076-z},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/European Journal for Philosophy of Science Volume 4 issue 1 2014 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13194-013-0076-z] Heilmann, Conrad -- Success conditions for nudges- a methodological critique of libertarian paternali.pdf:pdf},
issn = {18794920},
journal = {European Journal for Philosophy of Science},
keywords = {Behavioural economics,Dual process,Libertarian paternalism,Nudge},
number = {1},
pages = {75--94},
title = {{Success conditions for nudges: A methodological critique of libertarian paternalism}},
volume = {4},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Pfattheicher2020,
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic presents a major challenge to societies all over the globe. Two measures implemented in many countries to curb the spread of the disease are (a) minimizing close contact between people (“physical distancing”) and (b) wearing of face masks. In the present research, we tested the idea that physical distancing and wearing of face masks can be the result of a prosocial emotional process—empathy for people most vulnerable to the virus. In four preregistered studies (N = 3,718, Western population), we found that (a) empathy indeed relates to the motivation to adhere to physical distancing and to wearing face masks and (b) inducing empathy for people most vulnerable to the virus promotes the motivation to adhere to these measures (whereas merely providing information about the importance of the measures does not). In sum, the present research provides a better understanding of the factors underlying the willingness to follow two important measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.},
author = {Pfattheicher, Stefan and Nockur, Laila and B{\"{o}}hm, Robert and Sassenrath, Claudia and Petersen, Michael Bang},
doi = {10.1177/0956797620964422},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/EmpathyCOVID-19.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14679280},
journal = {Psychological Science},
keywords = {COVID-19,covid,empathy,face masks,open data,open materials,physical distancing,preregistered,prosociality,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,empathy,usado},
number = {11},
pages = {1363--1373},
pmid = {32993455},
title = {{The Emotional Path to Action: Empathy Promotes Physical Distancing and Wearing of Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic}},
volume = {31},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Sunstein2016,
abstract = {Over the past several years increasing attention has been given to the social engineering process of 'nudging' (also called 'choice architecture') and its impact as a mechanism designed to deliberately manipulate and incentivise people to think and act in a presumably beneficial direction.},
author = {Sunstein, Cass R},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/The Ethics of Nudging.pdf:pdf},
issn = {22027114},
journal = {Yale Journal on Regulation},
keywords = {usado},
mendeley-tags = {usado},
number = {6},
pages = {27},
pmid = {29251881},
title = {{the Ethics of 'Nudging'}},
volume = {24},
year = {2016}
}
@article{Schmidt2020,
abstract = {So-called nudge policies utilize insights from behavioral science to achieve policy outcomes. Nudge policies try to improve people's decisions by changing the ways options are presented to them, rather than changing the options themselves or incentivizing or coercing people. Nudging has been met with great enthusiasm but also fierce criticism. This paper provides an overview of the debate on the ethics of nudging to date. After outlining arguments in favor of nudging, we first discuss different objections that all revolve around the worry that nudging vitiates personal autonomy. We split up this worry into different dimensions of autonomy, such as freedom of choice, volitional autonomy, rational agency, and freedom as nondomination. We next discuss worries that nudging is manipulative, violates human dignity, and prevents more important structural reform. Throughout, we will present responses that proponents of nudging can muster. On the whole, we conclude that the objections fail to establish that the nudge program as a whole should be rejected. At the same time, they give us important guidance when moving towards an ethical assessment of nudges on a case-by-case basis. Towards the end, we provide some possible ways forward in debates around the ethics of nudging.},
author = {Schmidt, Andreas T. and Engelen, Bart},
doi = {10.1111/phc3.12658},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/phc3.12658.pdf:pdf},
issn = {17479991},
journal = {Philosophy Compass},
number = {4},
pages = {1--13},
title = {{The ethics of nudging: An overview}},
volume = {15},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Mills2015,
abstract = {Choice architecture is heralded as a policy approach that does not coercively reduce freedom of choice. Still we might worry that this approach fails to respect individual choice because it subversively manipulates individuals, thus contravening their personal autonomy. In this article I address two arguments to this effect. First, I deny that choice architecture is necessarily heteronomous. I explain the reasons we have for avoiding heteronomous policy-making and offer a set of four conditions for non-heteronomy. I then provide examples of nudges that meet these conditions. I argue that these policies are capable of respecting and promoting personal autonomy, and show this claim to be true across contrasting conceptions of autonomy. Second, I deny that choice architecture is disrespectful because it is epistemically paternalistic. This critique appears to loom large even against non-heteronomous nudges. However, I argue that while some of these policies may exhibit epistemically paternalistic tendencies, these tendencies do not necessarily undermine personal autonomy. Thus, if we are to find such policies objectionable, we cannot do so on the grounds of respect for autonomy.},
author = {Mills, Chris},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0242-7},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Mills2015.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {495--509},
title = {{The Heteronomy of Choice Architecture}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Lepenies2015,
abstract = {In this article we argue that a widespread adoption of nudging can alter legal and political institutions. Debates on nudges thus far have largely revolved around a set of philosophical theories that we call individualistic approaches. Our analysis concerns the ways in which adherents of nudging make use of the newest findings in the behavioral sciences for the purposes of policy-making. We emphasize the fact that most nudges proposed so far are not a part of the legal system and are also non-normative. We propose two ideal types: “law-as-normative” and “law-as-instrumental”, that allow us to understand and evaluate the relation of nudges and the law. We stress the importance of law as a safeguard for the possible negative consequences of nudges and conclude with proposals that could complement nudging policies.},
author = {Lepenies, Robert and Ma{\l}ecka, Magdalena},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0243-6},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0243-6] Lepenies, Robert$\backslash$; Ma{\l}ecka, Magdalena -- The Institutional Consequences of Nudging – Nudges, Politics, and th.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {427--437},
title = {{The Institutional Consequences of Nudging – Nudges, Politics, and the Law}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Kim2020a,
abstract = {Communications that include nudges and framing strategies are ubiquitous in our daily lives. In this paper, we investigate how different nudging strategies during a public health campaign, particularly supplementary information and statistics, influence perceptions of threat and stockpiling intentions, while also considering the role of childhood socioeconomic status. Specifically, building upon prior work in behavioral economics, we hypothesize that the presence of additional statistics elicits lower perceived threat and intention to stockpile. In addition, we predict find that the childhood socioeconomic status of individuals influences these effects. Three studies offer evidence for those predictions and demonstrate the importance of message framing in uncertain circumstances. Overall, this work contributes to the literature on nudging and life history theory by investigating how communication strategies can be used to increase or decrease perceived threat in order to achieve desired outcomes (e.g., limiting stockpiling or respecting social distancing).},
author = {Kim, Jungkeun and Giroux, Marilyn and Kim, Jae Eun and Choi, Yung Kyun and Gonzalez-Jimenez, Hector and Lee, Jacob C. and Park, Jooyoung and Jang, Seongsoo and {(Sam) Kim}, Seongseop},
doi = {10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102362},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Kim2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {09696989},
journal = {Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services},
keywords = {covid},
mendeley-tags = {covid},
number = {October},
pages = {102362},
publisher = {Elsevier Ltd},
title = {{The moderating role of childhood socioeconomic status on the impact of nudging on the perceived threat of coronavirus and stockpiling intention}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102362},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Whitman2015,
abstract = {Behavioral paternalism raises deep concerns that do not arise in traditional welfare economics. These concerns stem from behavioral paternalism's acceptance of the defining axioms of neoclassical rationality for normative purposes, despite having rejected them as positive descriptions of reality. We argue (1) that behavioral paternalists have indeed accepted neoclassical rationality axioms as a welfare standard; (2) that economists historically adopted these axioms not for their normative plausibility, but for their usefulness in formal and theoretical modeling; (3) that broadly rational individuals might fail to satisfy the axioms for various reasons, making them unpersuasive as normative criteria; and (4) that even if their violation did constitute irrationality, that would not justify paternalists' choosing among inconsistent preferences to define an individual's “true” preferences.},
author = {Whitman, Douglas Glen and Rizzo, Mario J.},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0244-5},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0244-5] Whitman, Douglas Glen$\backslash$; Rizzo, Mario J. -- The Problematic Welfare Standards of Behavioral Paternalism.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {409--425},
title = {{The Problematic Welfare Standards of Behavioral Paternalism}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Sibony2020,
author = {Sibony, Anne Lise},
doi = {10.1017/err.2020.22},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/the-uk-covid-19-response-a-behavioural-irony.pdf:pdf},
issn = {21908249},
journal = {European Journal of Risk Regulation},
keywords = {covid,usar nas considera{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es finais,utilitarism},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usar nas considera{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es finais,utilitarism},
number = {2},
pages = {350--357},
title = {{The UK covid-19 response: A behavioural irony?}},
volume = {11},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Lunn2020,
abstract = {This rapid, narrative review summarizes useful evidence from behavioral science for fighting the COVID-19 outbreak. We undertook an extensive, multi-disciplinary literature search covering five issues: handwashing, face touching, self-isolation, public-spirited behavior, and responses to crisis communication. The search identified more than 100 relevant papers. We find effective behavioral interventions to increase handwashing, but not to reduce face touching. Social supports and behavioral plans can reduce the negative psychological effects of isolation, potentially reducing the disincentive to isolate. Public-spirited behavior is more likely with frequent communication of what is “best for all”, strong group identity, and social disapproval of noncompliance. Effective crisis communication involves speed, honesty, credibility, empathy, and promoting useful individual actions. Risks are probably best communicated through numbers, with ranges to describe uncertainty – simply stating a maximum may bias public perception. The findings aim to be useful not only for government and public health authorities, but for organizations and communities.},
author = {Lunn, Peter D. and Belton, Cameron A. and Lavin, Ciar{\'{a}}n and McGowan, F{\'{e}}idhlim P. and Timmons, Shane and Robertson, Deirdre A.},
doi = {10.30636/jbpa.31.147},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/147-Other-924-3-10-20200514.pdf:pdf},
journal = {Journal of Behavioral Public Administration},
keywords = {behavioral science,covid,covid-19,interventions,ler de novo,narrative review,public policy,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,ler de novo,usado},
number = {1},
pages = {1--15},
title = {{Using Behavioral Science to help fight the Coronavirus}},
volume = {3},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Hale2020,
abstract = {COVID-19 has prompted a wide range of responses from governments around the world. There is a pressing need for up-to-date policy information as these responses proliferate, and governments weigh decisions about the stringency of their policies against other concerns. We introduce the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT), providing a systematic way to track the stringency of government responses to COVID-19 across countries and time. Using a novel index that combines various measures of government responses, we describe variation in government responses, explore whether rising stringency of response affects the rate of infection, and identify correlates of more or less stringent responses.},
author = {Hale, Thomas and Angrist, Noam and Cameron-Blake, Emily and Hallas, Laura and Kira, Betriz and Majumdar, Saptarshi and Petherick, Anna and Phillips, Toby and Tatlow, Helen and Webster, Samuel},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/BSG-WP-2020-032-v10.pdf:pdf},
journal = {BSG Working Paper Series. Blavatnik School of Government. University of Oxford},
keywords = {covid,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,usado},
pages = {Version 8.0},
title = {{Variation in government responses to COVID-19}},
url = {www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/covidtracker{\%}0Awww.bsg.ox.ac.uk/covidtracker{\%}0Ahttps://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/publications/variation-government-responses-covid-19},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Felsen2015,
abstract = {Strategies for improving individual decision making have attracted attention from a range of disciplines. Surprisingly, neuroscience has been largely absent from this conversation, despite the fact that it has recently begun illuminating the neural bases of how and why we make decisions, and is poised for further such advances. Here we address empirical and normative questions about “nudging” through the lens of neuroscience. We suggest that the neuroscience of decision making can provide a framework for understanding how nudges work, and how they can be improved. Towards this end, we first examine how nudges can be incorporated into a leading model of decision making supported by neurobiological data, and use the model to make predictions about the relative effectiveness of different classes of nudges. We then use the model to demonstrate how nudges can both infringe upon and promote autonomy. Finally, we explore the normative implications of the converging consensus from neuroscience and related fields that many everyday decisions are susceptible to covert external influences.},
author = {Felsen, Gidon and Reiner, Peter B.},
doi = {10.1007/s13164-015-0240-9},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Review of Philosophy and Psychology Volume 6 issue 3 2015 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs13164-015-0240-9] Felsen, Gidon$\backslash$; Reiner, Peter B. -- What can Neuroscience Contribute to the Debate Over Nudging{\_}.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {1316401502},
issn = {18785166},
journal = {Review of Philosophy and Psychology},
number = {3},
pages = {469--479},
title = {{What can Neuroscience Contribute to the Debate Over Nudging?}},
volume = {6},
year = {2015}
}
@article{Laato2020,
abstract = {The World Health Organisation has emphasised that misinformation–spreading rapidly through social media–poses a serious threat to the COVID-19 response. Drawing from theories of health perception and cognitive load, we develop and test a research model hypothesising why people share unverified COVID-19 information through social media. Our findings suggest a person's trust in online information and perceived information overload are strong predictors of unverified information sharing. Furthermore, these factors, along with a person's perceived COVID-19 severity and vulnerability influence cyberchondria. Females were significantly more likely to suffer from cyberchondria, with males more likely to share news without verifying its reliability. Our findings suggest that to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 misinformation and cyberchondria, measures should be taken to enhance a healthy scepticism of health news while simultaneously guarding against information overload.},
author = {Laato, Samuli and Islam, A. K.M.Najmul and Islam, Muhammad Nazrul and Whelan, Eoin},
doi = {10.1080/0960085X.2020.1770632},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/What drives unverified information sharing and cyberchondria during the COVID 19 pandemic.pdf:pdf},
issn = {14769344},
journal = {European Journal of Information Systems},
keywords = {COVID-19,P{\"{a}}r {\AA}gerfalk and Kieran Conboy,covid,cyberchondria,fake news,information overload,misinformation,nudge messages,pandemic,usado,usar nas considera{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es finais},
mendeley-tags = {covid,nudge messages,usado,usar nas considera{\c{c}}{\~{o}}es finais},
number = {3},
pages = {288--305},
publisher = {Taylor {\&} Francis},
title = {{What drives unverified information sharing and cyberchondria during the COVID-19 pandemic?}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1770632},
volume = {29},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Bunker2020,
abstract = {Developments in centrally managed communications (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) and service (e.g. Uber, airbnb) platforms, search engines and data aggregation (e.g. Google) as well as data analytics and artificial intelligence, have created an era of digital disruption during the last decade. Individual user profiles are produced by platform providers to make money from tracking, predicting, exploiting and influencing their users' decision preferences and behavior, while product and service providers transform their business models by targeting potential customers with more accuracy. There have been many social and economic benefits to this digital disruption, but it has also largely contributed to the digital destruction of mental model alignment and shared situational awareness through the propagation of mis-information i.e. reinforcement of dissonant mental models by recommender algorithms, bots and trusted individual platform users (influencers). To mitigate this process of digital destruction, new methods and approaches to the centralized management of these platforms are needed to build on and encourage trust in the actors that use them (and by association trust in their mental models). The global ‘infodemic' resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, highlights the current problem confronting the information system discipline and the urgency of finding workable solutions.},
author = {Bunker, Deborah},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102201},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Bunker2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {02684012},
journal = {International Journal of Information Management},
keywords = {COVID-19,Digital destruction,Digital disruption,Infodemic,Mental model,Shared situational awareness,Trust,bad nudges,covid,nudge messages,usado,usar na cr{\'{i}}tica},
mendeley-tags = {bad nudges,covid,nudge messages,usado,usar na cr{\'{i}}tica},
number = {August},
pages = {102201},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {{Who do you trust? The digital destruction of shared situational awareness and the COVID-19 infodemic}},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102201},
volume = {55},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Yan2020,
abstract = {Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are important public health tools to fight against COVID-19. Governments around the world have instituted a variety of NPIs to modify individuals' behavior, giving rise to four distinct pandemic response strategies: nudge, mandate, decree, and boost. To better understand the different policy choices involved in these strategies, four countries including Sweden, China, France, and Japan were compared to identify the critical institutional and cultural determinants of national response strategy. The finding shows that various responses regarding same threat are dependent on the distinctive institutional arrangements and cultural orientation of each country, and thus, there is no One-Size-Fits-All strategy.},
author = {Yan, Bo and Zhang, Xiaomin and Wu, Long and Zhu, Heng and Chen, Bin},
doi = {10.1177/0275074020942445},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Yan2020.pdf:pdf},
issn = {15523357},
journal = {American Review of Public Administration},
keywords = {COVID-19,covid,cultural orientation,ethics,institutional arrangements,response strategy,usado},
mendeley-tags = {covid,ethics,usado},
number = {6-7},
pages = {762--769},
title = {{Why Do Countries Respond Differently to COVID-19? A Comparative Study of Sweden, China, France, and Japan}},
volume = {50},
year = {2020}
}
@article{Sugden2008,
abstract = {A variety of recent arguments emerging from behavioural economics claim to undermine the credibility, and even the conceptual coherence, of the economist's traditional rejection of paternalism. Indeed, some suggest that the incoherent nature of preferences inevitably implies a form of paternalism, since some basis for officiating between expressed preferences is required, and some preferences will be over-ridden in favour of others. This paper reviews and contests these arguments. It argues that markets operate according to a normatively defensible and non-paternalistic principle of mutual advantage, and that this principle does not require preferences to be coherent. {\textcopyright} 2008 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.},
author = {Sugden, Robert},
doi = {10.1007/s10602-008-9043-7},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Constitutional Political Economy Volume 19 issue 3 2008 [doi 10.1007{\%}2Fs10602-008-9043-7] Robert Sugden -- Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism.pdf:pdf},
issn = {10434062},
journal = {Constitutional Political Economy},
keywords = {Behavioural economics,Paternalism,Preferences},
number = {3},
pages = {226--248},
title = {{Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism}},
volume = {19},
year = {2008}
}
@article{Mills2013,
abstract = {This article argues that, contrary to Goodwin's recent arguments, nudges are compatible with the coalition government's stated aspiration to further self-empowerment. This is because, despite its libertarian roots, nudging is compatible with the promotion of personal autonomy and thus can be used to promote self-empowerment in a non-paternalistic fashion. Further, I argue that nudging may play a valid role in tackling large-scale social problems in tandem with other traditional policy measures. Consequently, Goodwin is wrong to reject choice architecture for these reasons. {\textcopyright} 2012 Political Studies Association.},
author = {Mills, Chris},
doi = {10.1111/j.1467-9256.2012.01450.x},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Politics Volume 33 issue 1 2013 [doi 10.1111{\%}2Fj.1467-9256.2012.01450.x] Mills, Chris -- Why Nudges Matter- A Reply to Goodwin.pdf:pdf},
issn = {02633957},
journal = {Politics},
keywords = {Autonomy,Libertarianism,Manipulation,Nudging,Paternalism},
number = {1},
pages = {28--36},
title = {{Why nudges matter: A reply to goodwin}},
volume = {33},
year = {2013}
}
@article{Morstyn2001,
abstract = {Objective: To critically review General Council's decision designating participation in the MOPS program as mandatory for retention of Fellowship from 1 January 2003. Conclusions: Mandatory CME is increasingly being used overseas to pave the way for Managed Care. The RANZCP MOPS program, in both its compulsory audit and structured improvement components, explicitly and implicitly encourages Managed Care benchmarks, objectives and values. Managed Care inevitably leads to damage to the patient-therapist relationship and demoralisation of doctors. Mandatory MOPS is unproven, overly expensive, bureaucratic, unfair, intrusive and educationally counter-productive. It will give excessive control to the College over psychiatrists' practices and will lead to a number of legal problems. The decision of General Council should be reversed, the mandatory audit components of MOPS dropped and a more flexible, inexpensive and truly educationally based MOPS program developed.},
author = {Morstyn, R.},
doi = {10.1046/j.1440-1665.2001.0359a.x},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/Australasian Psychiatry Volume 9 issue 4 2001 [doi 10.1046{\%}2Fj.1440-1665.2001.0359a.x] Ron Morstyn -- Why we should reject mandatory MOPS.pdf:pdf},
issn = {10398562},
journal = {Australasian Psychiatry},
keywords = {Continuing medical education,Managed care,Psychiatry},
number = {4},
pages = {325--329},
title = {{Why we should reject mandatory MOPS}},
volume = {9},
year = {2001}
}
@book{,
abstract = {Every person seeks to steer his or her own course, and a great deal of development policy aims to supply the resources and information people in low- and middle-income economies require in their voyage through life. But while such an approach is often appropriate, it can be incomplete. To understand why, consider a comparison with airplane pilots. During the middle decades of the 20th century, a number of flight and engine instruments were developed with the intention of improving how pilots steer their air- craft. But by the 1980s, the multiplying technological improvements and additional information had the opposite effect of what the designers had intended: instead of assisting pilots in steering their courses, airplane cockpits had become increasingly complex environments in which the technical improvements stressed and even overwhelmed the pilots. Rates of pilot error rose. Experts in the field of human factors design—a multidisciplinary field based on the core idea that decision making is the product of an interac- tion between mind and context—were contacted. The airplane cockpit was redesigned with close attention to how information is packaged and presented, so that it fit the human body and its cognitive abilities. These days, airplane cockpits contain fewer instru- ments than several decades ago because the design of cockpit instrument displays is based on a deeper understanding of human cognitive processes. The title of this Report, Mind, Society, and Behavior, captures the idea that paying attention to how humans think (the processes of mind) and how history and context shape thinking (the influence of society) can improve the design and implementation of develop- ment policies and interventions that target human choice and action (behavior). To put it differently, development policy is due for its own redesign based on careful consideration of human factors. This Report aims to integrate recent findings on the psychological and social underpinnings of behavior to make them available for more systematic use by both researchers and practitioners in development com- munities. The Report draws on findings from many disciplines, including neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, behavioral economics, sociology, political science, and anthropology. In ongoing research, these findings help explain decisions that individuals make in many aspects of development, including savings, investment, energy consumption, health, and child rearing. The findings also enhance the understand- ing of how collective behaviors—such as widespread trust or widespread corruption—develop and become entrenched in a society. The findings apply not only to individuals in developing countries but also to development professionals, who are themselves prone to error when decision-making contexts are complex},
booktitle = {World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior},
doi = {10.1596/978-1-4648-0342-0},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/WDR-2015-Full-Report.pdf:pdf},
isbn = {9781464803420},
title = {{World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior}},
year = {2014}
}
@article{Bolderston2008,
abstract = {A literature review can be an informative, critical, and useful synthesis of a particular topic. It can identify what is known (and unknown) in the subject area, identify areas of controversy or debate, and help formulate questions that need further research. There are several commonly used formats for literature reviews, including systematic reviews conducted as primary research projects; reviews written as an introduction and foundation for a research study, such as a thesis or dissertation; and reviews as secondary data analysis research projects. Regardless of the type, a good review is characterized by the author's efforts to evaluate and critically analyze the relevant work in the field. Published reviews can be invaluable, because they collect and disseminate evidence from diverse sources and disciplines to inform professional practice on a particular topic. This directed reading will introduce the learner to the process of conducting and writing their own literature review. {\textcopyright} 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
author = {Bolderston, Amanda},
doi = {10.1016/j.jmir.2008.04.009},
file = {:Users/analuizec/Desktop/P{\'{o}}s Gradua{\c{c}}{\~{a}}o/Doutorado/2020.2 {\'{E}}tica/Artigo {\'{E}}tica e Nudge/PIIS193986540800057X.pdf:pdf},
issn = {19398654},
journal = {Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences},
number = {2},
pages = {86--92},
title = {{Writing an Effective Literature Review}},
volume = {39},
year = {2008}
}
